15. APEAL.224.22.doc

ssk

IN

IN

THE

THE

HIGH

HIGH

COURT

COURT

OF

OF

JUDICATURE

JUDICATURE

AT

AT

BOMBAY

BOMBAY

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL

APPELLATE

APPELLATE

JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 224 OF 2022

Mahesh Shrihari Latpate

..Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Anr.

..Respondents

Mr. Nitesh Mohite a/w. Mr. Ashish Vernekar i/by Mr. Sachin T. Zalte

for Appellant.

Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for State.

Ms. Devyani Kulkani, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM :A. S. GADKARI &

MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

DATE

:23^rd September, 2022.

P.C.

:

.

By the present Appeal, Appellant (original accused No.1) has

impugned the Order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the learned Special

Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune below Exhibit-8 in Special

Case No. 755 of 2020, thereby rejecting the Application for bail under

Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2.

Heard Mr.Mohite, learned Advocate for the Appellant,

Mr.Patil, learned APP for State and Ms. Kulkarni, learned Advocate

appointed by the Legal Aid Committee to represent Respondent No.2.

Perused chargesheet.

3.

As the victim in the present case is a minor, in consonance

with provisions of Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section

1/4

15. APEAL.224.22.doc

33(7) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (“POCSO

Act”), the detailed narration of the facts disclosing her identity and/or

identity of her near relatives is hereby avoided.

4.

Appellant is accused No.1 in Criminal Case No. 326 of 2020

dated 12.10.2020 registered with Ranjangaon MIDC Police Station,

Pune (Rural). After investigation, the said case is culminated into

Special Case No. 755 of 2020.

5.

It is the prosecution’s case that, the Appellant was residing in

Room No. 401 in the same building where the victim (minor) who was

aged about 14 years and 6 months at the relevant time, was residing

in room No. 306 on the 3^rd floor. That, the Appellant pestered victim

saying that, he is in love with her; initially did blackmailing by saying

that, he may commit suicide, if she refuses to marry with him and

subsequently in connivance with other two accused persons removed

the victim from the lawful custody of her parents on 12.10.2020. That,

the Appellant thereafter took victim to Pune and subsequently to

Kolhapur and Ladewadgaon, Taluka Kej, District Beed and committed

forcible sexual intercourse with her.

6.

Appellant came to be arrested on 19.10.2020 at

Ladewadgaon, Taluka Kej, District Beed. Perusal of statement of

victim clearly indicates that, Appellant induced her to leave her

parents and with the help and in connivance with other two accused

2/4

15. APEAL.224.22.doc

persons took her to Pune, Kolhapur and Ladewadgaon, Taluka Kej,

District Beed and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. It

appears that, Appellant also threatened the prosecutrix that, if she

refuses to permit him to have sexual relations with her, he may

defame her in the society.

7.

Record further indicates that, the statement of prosecutrix

under Section 164 of Cr.PC has been recorded by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Taluka Shirur, District Pune on 20.09.2020.

Perusal of the said statement clearly indicates that, the victim has not

deviated from her original statement recorded under Section 161 of

Cr.PC.

8.

Ms. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appointed to represent

Respondent No.2 pointed out that, as per the medical documents, the

U.P. Test of victim has shown positive results. That, the Medical

Officer attached to Rural Hospital at Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, District

Pune has opined that, on examination of prosecutrix sexual assault

might have occurred.

9.

After taking into consideration the material available on

record, this Court is of the considered view that, Appellant does not

deserve to be released on bail.

We find that, there is no error committed by the learned trial

Court while passing the impugned Orders dated 03.8.2021 on meri